Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is blasting people within her own party for ‘lying’ about her position during a key round of government funding votes late last week.

‘Google is free. If you’re saying I voted for military funding, you are lying. Receipts attached,’ Ocasio-Cortez wrote alongside several screenshots showing her vote ‘no’ on Republicans’ military funding bill.

‘Drag me for my positions all you want, but lying about them doesn’t make you part of the ‘left.’ If you believe neo-nazis are welcome and operating in good faith, you can have them!’

The New York City Democrat got broadsided from her left over her vote on a specific amendment aimed at blocking U.S. funding for Israel’s Iron Dome, though it did not make it into the final bill – which Ocasio-Cortez voted against.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) criticized the progressive firebrand for voting against an amendment by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., to block $500 million in Congress’ annual defense spending bill that was aimed at helping fund Israeli missile defense systems.

‘An arms embargo means keeping all arms out of the hands of a genocidal military, no exceptions. This is why we oppose Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’[s] vote against an amendment that would have blocked $500 million in funding for the Israeli military’s Iron Dome program,’ the DSA said over the weekend.

The DSA noted she did vote against the defense funding bill itself, thereby ‘voting against funding for the imperialist military-industrial complex and the Israeli genocide.’

The group added, however, ‘We were further deeply disappointed by her clarifying statement on her position on the Iron Dome.’

‘Along with other US-funded interceptor systems, the Iron Dome has emboldened Israel to invade or bomb no less than five different countries in the past two years,’ the DSA said.

‘The fact that Representative Ocasio-Cortez acknowledges that Israel is carrying out this genocide makes her support for military aid all the more disappointing and incongruous. We urge the representative to continue voting against the Iron Dome, whether it is part of a larger defense spending bill or as a stand-alone bill.’

The DSA commended Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.; Summer Lee, D-Pa., and Al Green, D-Texas, for voting against the amendment.

Fox News Digital reached out to Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign and congressional office for comment.

She posted on X after the vote, ‘Marjorie Taylor Greene’s amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza. Of course I voted against it.’

‘What it does do is cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue. I have long stated that I do not believe that adding to the death count of innocent victims to this war is constructive to its end,’ she said.

‘That is a simple and clear difference of opinion that has long been established. I remain focused on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza.’

The clash exemplifies how Israel continues to drive an ideological wedge within the Democratic Party. 

It’s not the first time Ocasio-Cortez caught heat from the progressive base for failing to take a critical enough stance on Israel.

In 2021, the New York Democrat cried on the House floor after voting ‘present’ on funding Israel’s Iron Dome defense system.

‘Yes, I wept,’ she wrote in an open letter to constituents after the incident. ‘I wept at the complete lack of care for the human beings that are impacted by these decisions. I wept at an institution choosing a path of maximum volatility and minimum consideration for its own political convenience.’

The overall bill that passed last week calls for $832 billion in defense funding for fiscal year 2026.

That’s separate from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), another annual bill that sets defense and national security policy each fiscal year – essentially detailing how those funds will be spent.

Greene’s amendment to strip $500 million going toward Israeli missile defense programs lost in a lopsided 6-422 vote.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley released declassified documents related to the FBI’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server when she served in the federal government, revealing the FBI reportedly ‘failed to fully investigate’ the matter. 

‘This document shows an extreme lack of effort and due diligence in the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s email usage and mishandling of highly classified information,’ Grassley said in a Monday press release.

‘Under Comey’s leadership, the FBI failed to perform fundamental investigative work and left key pieces of evidence on the cutting room floor,’ he continued. ‘The Comey FBI’s negligent approach and perhaps intentional lack of effort in the Clinton investigation is a stark contrast to its full-throated investigation of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, which was based on the uncorroborated and now discredited Steele dossier. Comey’s decision-making process smacks of political infection.’ 

Clinton, who served as former President Barack Obama’s secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, was investigated by the FBI over claims she improperly stored or transmitted classified materials on a private email server. The FBI advised the Department of Justice in 2016, ahead of that year’s massive election that pitted Clinton against future President Donald Trump, that Clinton should not face prosecution over the matter.

‘Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,’ then-FBI director James Comey said in a press release. ‘Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.’ 

Grassley specifically released declassified materials from the ‘Clinton annex,’ which is an appendix to the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General’s 2018 report that reviewed the DOJ and FBI’s handling of the Clinton investigation. Attorney General Pam Bondi, and other Trump administration leaders at other agencies, declassified the materials and delivered them to Grassley at his request, his press release reported.

The documents claim that then-FBI Director Comey, as well as other FBI leaders, obtained thumb drives related to their investigation into Clinton, but that the agency failed ‘to perform additional, targeted searches of the drives,’ according to Grassley’s office.

The thumb drives reportedly were never reviewed during the investigation, but ‘contained highly sensitive information exfiltrated from U.S. government agencies, including the Department of State, as well as then-President Barack Obama’s emails and, potentially, congressional information.’

The FBI also obtained intelligence that alleged communications between Florida Democrat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who served as Democratic National Committee chair until July 2016 when she resigned, and individuals who worked for the Soros Open Society Foundations, which was founded by left-wing billionaire donor George Soros. 

‘The intelligence reports alleged that the Obama administration took efforts to scuttle the investigation into Clinton and protect her candidacy,’ Grassley’s release reported, but that the FBI at the time did ‘not make serious investigative efforts’ into the intelligence reports. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Clinton’s office, Wasserman Schultz’s office, the Soros Open Society Foundations and the Kettering Foundation, where Comey currently works as a senior fellow, for comment on Grassley’s release, but did not immediately receive replies. 

‘I warned years ago that the Clinton investigation failed to hit the mark, and I’m grateful the American people can finally see the facts for themselves,’ Grassley said in the press release’After nearly a decade in the shadows, this information is now coming to light thanks to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel’s dedicated efforts to fulfill my congressional request. 

‘I appreciate their ongoing commitment to transparency and strongly urge them to continue to fully review this matter, including its national security impact,’ he said.

Grassley’s release follows Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s bombshell claims that Obama-era officials reportedly ‘manufactured and politicized intelligence’ to create the narrative that Russia was attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Gabbard released unclassified documents Friday that reportedly show ‘overwhelming evidence’ that then-President Obama and his national security team laid the groundwork for what would be the yearslong Trump-Russia collusion probe after Trump’s election win against Clinton in 2016. 

‘Their goal was to usurp President Trump and subvert the will of the American people,’ Gabbard had posted to X on Friday regarding the criminal referral. ‘No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The integrity of our democratic republic depends on it. We are turning over all documents to the DOJ for criminal referral.’ 

Fox News confirmed earlier Monday that the DOJ received Gabbard’s criminal referral related to the matter but did not share additional comment.  

Lawyers for Harvard University and the Trump administration sparred in federal court in Boston on Monday over the administration’s decision to slash roughly $2.6 billion in federal research funding for the university – the latest in a series of high-stakes court clashes that have pitted the Trump administration against the nation’s oldest university. 

Harvard sued the Trump administration in April over the funding freeze, which it described in its lawsuit as an unlawful and unconstitutional effort to assert federal ‘control’ over elite academic institutions, according to a filing submitted to U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs. 

The Trump administration, for its part, has accused Harvard of ‘fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,’ and refusing to comply with demands from a federal antisemitism task force sent to the university earlier this year.

Both sides have asked Burroughs, an Obama appointee, to issue a summary judgment by early September, which could allow them to avoid a lengthy trial before the start of the new school year.

In court on Monday, Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky argued that the funding cuts are an illegal attempt by the Trump administration to coerce the university into complying with the administration’s policies and violate the First Amendment and Title VI protections.

Lawyers for Harvard have argued that the Trump administration’s actions amount to an unconstitutional ‘pressure campaign’ to influence and exert control over its academic programs, which Lehotsky echoed on Monday.

He told Burroughs the funding freeze is an attempt by the Trump administration to control the ‘inner workings’ of the university, and one he argued could cause lasting damage.  

He pointed to earlier claims from Harvard that the administration ‘fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.’

‘By accepting federal funds, Harvard agreed to abide by the provisions in Title VI and the relevant agencies’ corresponding regulations,’ lawyers for the university said in filing the lawsuit earlier this year.

But Harvard’s agreement, they said, does not constitute a ‘blank check for agencies to impose the government’s recent, unrelated demands as a condition of continued funding.’

Meanwhile, Michael Velchik, a lawyer for the Justice Department, countered that the administration has ‘every right’ to cancel the funding, which they sought to frame as a mere contract issue and one that should be heard in a different court. 

The Justice Department also reiterated that they see Harvard’s actions as violating the administration’s order combating antisemitism. 

‘Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,’ Velchik said on Monday. ‘The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.’

President Donald Trump signaled dissatisfaction with the hearing on Monday – vowing on social media to appeal any ruling against the administration to a higher court.

He also took aim at Burroughs. ‘How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases?’ he said on Truth Social, ‘When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN,’ 

Trump further took aim at Harvard, accusing the university of being ‘anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,’ despite having ‘$52 billion’ sitting in the bank.

‘Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other schools, colleges, and institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer,’ Trump said. 

Burroughs ended Monday’s hearing by saying she would take the case under advisement, and would issue a ruling after she had sufficient time to weigh the matters presented by the administration and the university. 

She did not offer a timeframe for when she planned to rule on the matter.

Still, the judge appeared skeptical during the hearing of some Trump administration claims, including how it could make such wanton cuts to university funding.

At one point, Burroughs noted to Velchik that she had doubts about the government’s so-called ‘ad hoc’ decisions to cut billions in grant money without providing further evidence, documentation or procedure to ‘suss out’ whether the university or its administrators had taken sufficient steps to combat antisemItism or comply with the guidance handed down by the Trump administration.  

‘The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,’ she told Velchik at one point during the hearing. 

‘I don’t think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech.’

Since Trump took office in January, the administration has targeted the university with investigations from six separate federal agencies. 

It has also sought to ban Harvard’s ability to host international students by attempting to revoke its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) – a program led by the Department of Homeland Security that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas. 

Burroughs in June issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from immediately revoking its SEVP credentials, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer ‘immediate and irreparable harm’ if the action was enforced.

Harvard, meanwhile, has signaled no plans to stand down in its fight with the Trump administration.

‘Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else,’ Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview earlier this summer discussing the administration’s actions.

Congressional Republicans are facing an uphill battle over the next two months to deliver on their promises to cut spending in the next fiscal year – while avoiding a partial government shutdown if no deal is struck.

‘When’s the last time we got 12 appropriations bills actually done, and completed in a couple of weeks? It’s almost impossible to do,’ Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Ga., told Fox News Digital last week.

Passing 12 individual appropriations bills, each funding separate aspects of the federal government, has been Republicans’ goal each time the Sept. 30 fiscal year (FY) deadline nears.

But that has not happened since 1996 — FY1997 — and the partisan environment in Washington has only gotten more polarized since. Recent Republican-backed legislation has all but sidelined the once-powerful appropriations committees in both chambers.

Meanwhile, House Republicans are more broadly eager to adhere to the Trump administration’s request to cut $163 billion from non-defense government spending than their Senate counterparts – which could result in a standoff between the two chambers.

‘It’s looking like it’s going to be higher than what the president’s budget is. And that, I’m not a fan of,’ Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., a member of the House Appropriations Committee, told Fox News Digital last week.

Another committee Republican, Rep. Riley Moore, R-W.Va., said, ‘I’m really proud of the work the committee has done so far. I do feel like we’re gonna be able to get these bills done. The question is, what’s the Senate going to do?’

Further compounding difficulties between the two sides of the U.S. Capitol is the 60-vote filibuster threshold that most bills in the Senate must ram through. 

That means that any spending bills have to be bipartisan, but after Senate Republicans advanced President Donald Trump’s $9 billion rescissions package, Senate Democrats have warned that they won’t play ball. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said that he would like to go ahead with a regular appropriations process, but that Senate Democrats ‘have signaled that they don’t want one.’

‘The Democrats have been very clear,’ he said. ‘They are already conferencing the idea of a government shutdown — I don’t have any idea, no idea how that is helpful for them or to anyone.’ 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., previously warned that if Republicans were successful in passing the rescissions package — after icing out Democrats during the budget reconciliation process — that there could be trouble down the road in generating enough bipartisan support to pass spending bills, nonetheless avert a partial government shutdown. 

Sen. John Hoeven, chair of the Senate Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations subcommittee, told Fox News Digital that if Democrats planned to block everything, then ‘what would you expect?’

‘By working with us, that’s how they actually will get some of their priorities,’ the North Dakota Republican said. ‘But when they’re going to just block us, then why should their priorities be included?’

A House Appropriations Committee member who spoke with Fox News Digital on the condition of anonymity indicated that Republican lawmakers are beginning to accept the possibility of a short-term continuing resolution (CR), a stopgap measure extending the previous fiscal year’s funding levels in order to keep the government open.

‘You could see a situation where you’re in a short-term CR, and we’ll try to negotiate topline numbers and all that,’ that House lawmaker said.

It’s a situation that House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., didn’t rule out to reporters early last week – while agreeing with Senate Republicans’ concerns about Democrats failing to work across the aisle.

‘I’m always worried about a shutdown, because I think the Democrats have a very hard time bargaining with Donald Trump. I mean, that’s why we ended up in a CR,’ Cole said, referring to the last round of government funding talks that resulted in a CR from March through the end of FY2025.

‘We offered them a much better deal than a CR, and they couldn’t do it. So I hope this time they can, but the temperature on the other side is very high, and Democratic voters are punishing their own members for cooperating on things like keeping the government open.’

That could create issue with members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, however, who have fiercely pushed back against CRs or ‘omnibus’ spending bills in the past – though no such standoffs have led to a shutdown in recent years.

Both House and Senate Republicans are dealing with razor-thin margins of just three votes.

House Republicans scored an important victory last week in passing their $832 billion defense funding bill. That, along with the bill funding military construction and Veterans’ Affairs, make up more than half of the discretionary budget requested by the White House earlier this year.

But they’re not expected to hold House-wide votes on any of the remaining 10 bills before early September, when Congress returns from August recess.

Senate Republicans are also gearing up to consider their first spending bill, one for military construction and the VA, on Tuesday that will likely end up being a test of how the appropriations process, and likely government funding extension, will play out in the coming months. 

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said after the rescissions package passed that she wanted to see the panel return to form, and in doing so, keeping the bipartisan spirit of appropriations alive. 

‘It is unfortunate that many members of this body have voted to make that a whole lot harder,’ the Washington state Democrat said. 

One senior House GOP lawmaker who spoke with Fox News Digital ultimately downplayed concerns of a shutdown, however.

‘The factors of the Senate wanting more money than the House, Democrats wanting more money than Republicans – those have been in place for a generation. And most of the time, shutdowns don’t happen,’ that lawmaker said. 

‘It would seem to me that although the Democrats are big mad about Elon and Trump, and reconciliation, at some point, that temperature’s going to fade and people are going to realize that a shutdown doesn’t really serve our national interests.’

Iran said it will hold talks with Russia and China on Tuesday in an attempt to circumvent U.N. snapback sanctions as the deadline for a nuclear agreement looms. 

‘We are in constant consultation with these two countries to prevent activation of the snapback or to mitigate its consequences,’ Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said during a Monday press briefing, reported Iran International. ‘We have aligned positions and good relations.’

Both China and Russia are signatories of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement that seemingly failed to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions following the U.S. withdrawal from the deal under the first Trump presidency in 2018 and the subsequent nuclear advances Tehran made. 

The news of the impending meeting comes one week after France, Germany and the U.K. announced they would enforce snapback sanctions on Tehran if it fails to enter into a new nuclear agreement by the end of August. 

What would need to be included in a new nuclear deal remains unclear and Iran has not yet renewed nuclear negotiations with the U.S. after Washington levied significant strikes against its top atomic facilities last month in coordination with Israel. 

The snapback mechanism was reserved under the JCPOA and allows any signatory of the agreement to recall stiff international sanctions on Iran to be enforced by all 15 members of the United Nations Security Council – including Russia and China – if Tehran is determined to have violated the terms of the 2015 deal. 

Since the first Trump presidency, the U.S. has threatened the use of snapback sanctions, though Washington can no longer call for the re-implementation of the economic tool as it left the agreement – a decision determined by the U.N. and the other JCPOA signatories. 

But top D.C. officials, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have continued to encourage European allies to use this tool to push Iran to cease nuclear development. 

Iran is also set to hold talks with France, Germany and the U.K. – an alliance also known as the E3 – this Friday, though the window to secure a new nuclear deal is closing despite years of repeated attempts.

‘Snapback at the UNSC remains, not just the Trump administration’s, but the international community’s most powerful political and diplomatic tool against the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program,’ Behnam Ben Taleblu, Iranian expert and senior director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Iran program, told Fox News Digital.

‘Snapback and a restoration of older, tougher UNSC resolutions that contain arms export prohibitions, missile testing prohibitions, as well as a panel of experts to monitor sanctions compliance, will actually magnify the political and military dividends that the U.S. and Israeli strikes have given,’ he added.

Security experts have been sounding the alarm for months that it will take roughly six weeks for U.N. sanctions to be enforced, largely due to procedural reasons, and the ability to enforce snapback sanctions under JCPOA terms will expire on Oct. 18.

Ben Taleblu also warned that these intense sanctions on Iran could instigate further security threats to the West when it comes to Tehran’s nuclear program, as it could prompt Iran to leave other major international nuclear agreements like the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).